1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 21, 1972, the Plaintiff entered the Army as sick.

On November 1, 1972, while serving in the military, the Plaintiff was arrested on November 2, 1972, and was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months due to the above criminal facts, and was confined to the Army Prison on January 16, 1973, and was detained in the National Army and Waterworks Integrated Hospital on November 6, 1973.

The plaintiff was discharged from military service on April 30, 1974.

B. On April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for registration of a person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that he/she applied for a “mental disease” (hereinafter “instant disability”) to the Defendant.

C. On September 18, 2017, the Defendant is entitled to the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State”) on the ground that the Plaintiff “the

Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act on Persons Eligible for Veteran's Compensation") that does not meet the requirements for persons of distinguished service to the State

"Disposition in this case" is referred to as "disposition in this case," in which the above decision does not meet the requirements for persons eligible for veteran's compensation.

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on June 19, 2018. [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was physically and mentally healthy before entering the military, and the Plaintiff was subject to physical harsh treatment after entering the military, and was under considerable stress, which led to the occurrence or rapid aggravation of the instant wounds, and the Plaintiff was subject to harsh treatment during confinement in the military prison, and may be deemed to have caused the instant wounds or have rapidly aggravated. In light of the above, the instant difference is deemed as a performance of duties.